I'd like to see what exactly he's referencing as "Hidden source code". Because nothing about that makes any sense. I assume he's talking about HTML code. But if he is, it still doesn't make much sense. HTML code isn't hidden, it's just not all displayed on the screen in a web browser. You can view the source code for any webpage in any browser. In Chrome, you simply right click and select Inspect Element, and it will show you the HTML source code. In Firefox, you just click View then Page Source. But even still, you're not going to be held liable for something you don't see or consent to. That's ridiculous. So there's no legal Gotcha they could use in that regard.

Mr. Barton doesn't really understand what he's talking about and can't explain where it is or why or how it's relevant, but he's still demanding answers. Which of course the people cannot answer. And Barton is taking the inability to answer his confusing question to mean he's caught them doing something terribly wrong, when in reality there's not enough info for those people to provide an answer to his question. This is all BS, and even if what he's saying is in some source code but not visible to the user, it sure as hell wouldn't be legally binding. And do people really think the government would do something that absurd and have everybody sign up and then go "Ahhh ha! We got you! You guys don't have any personal rights anymore. We win!"

I'd like to see what exactly he's referencing as "Hidden source code". Because nothing about that makes any sense. I assume he's talking about HTML code. But if he is, it still doesn't make much sense. HTML code isn't hidden, it's just not all displayed on the screen in a web browser. You can view the source code for any webpage in any browser. In Chrome, you simply right click and select Inspect Element, and it will show you the HTML source code. In Firefox, you just click View then Page Source. But even still, you're not going to be held liable for something you don't see or consent to. That's ridiculous. So there's no legal Gotcha they could use in that regard.

Mr. Barton doesn't really understand what he's talking about and can't explain where it is or why or how it's relevant, but he's still demanding answers. Which of course the people cannot answer. And Barton is taking the inability to answer his confusing question to mean he's caught them doing something terribly wrong, when in reality there's not enough info for those people to provide an answer to his question. This is all BS, and even if what he's saying is in some source code but not visible to the user, it sure as hell wouldn't be legally binding. And do people really think the government would do something that absurd and have everybody sign up and then go "Ahhh ha! We got you! You guys don't have any personal rights anymore. We win!"

During Thursday's congressional hearing with the contractors responsible for building the troubled ObamaCare federal exchanges, we learned that whether you end up enrolling in ObamaCare or not, no one who puts any information into the ObamaCare website can expect to have their privacy protected. Moreover, the fact that you are giving up your right to privacy is hidden in source code that reads, "You have no reasonable expectation of privacy regarding any communication of any data transmitted or stored on this information system."

During his questioning on this specific issue, Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) only received chilling answers and deflections from the primary contractor responsible for the site. When he asked Cheryl Campbell of CGI about it, her icy response was that another contractor was responsible. After some pressuring, she finally admitted that she was aware of the hidden source code.

Just a few minutes earlier, however, Ms. Campbell testified under oath that the ObamaCare website is HIPAA compliant -- meaning everyone's medical and personal information is protected by law. The privacy section on the ObamaCare website says your privacy will be protected. The hidden source code seems to say, "just kidding."

The next questioner was Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ) who immediately attacked Barton as running a "monkey court" and then dismissed the fact that people are unknowingly giving up their right to privacy. Pallone correctly pointed out that you are not required to give out any medical information on the ObamaCare site, but Pallone conveniently ignored the fact that HIPAA doesn't just protect medical information. It is also supposed to protect personal information.
Just to get yourself an insurance quote on the ObamaCare site, you have been required to give out information on your income, place of employment, family, and answer a number of questions that verify your identity. For instance, I had to verify a recent car loan. And while you are not required to give out your social security number, you are repeatedly pressured to do so.

You are also asked detailed questions about your family situation -- whether you are married and how many children you have. Just to get a quote, I also had to answer intrusive questions about my wife, even though she is already insured and won't be buying insurance through ObamaCare.

Had I known that without my knowledge, I was giving away my right to privacy, there is no way on earth I would've given the ObamaCare site as much information as I did.

Just to get yourself an insurance quote on the ObamaCare site, you have been required to give out information on your income, place of employment, family, and answer a number of questions that verify your identity.

Everybody already willingly gives that information to the government in multiple ways.

During Thursday's congressional hearing with the contractors responsible for building the troubled ObamaCare federal exchanges, we learned that whether you end up enrolling in ObamaCare or not, no one who puts any information into the ObamaCare website can expect to have their privacy protected. Moreover, the fact that you are giving up your right to privacy is hidden in source code that reads, "You have no reasonable expectation of privacy regarding any communication of any data transmitted or stored on this information system."

During his questioning on this specific issue, Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) only received chilling answers and deflections from the primary contractor responsible for the site. When he asked Cheryl Campbell of CGI about it, her icy response was that another contractor was responsible. After some pressuring, she finally admitted that she was aware of the hidden source code.

Just a few minutes earlier, however, Ms. Campbell testified under oath that the ObamaCare website is HIPAA compliant -- meaning everyone's medical and personal information is protected by law. The privacy section on the ObamaCare website says your privacy will be protected. The hidden source code seems to say, "just kidding."

The next questioner was Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ) who immediately attacked Barton as running a "monkey court" and then dismissed the fact that people are unknowingly giving up their right to privacy. Pallone correctly pointed out that you are not required to give out any medical information on the ObamaCare site, but Pallone conveniently ignored the fact that HIPAA doesn't just protect medical information. It is also supposed to protect personal information.
Just to get yourself an insurance quote on the ObamaCare site, you have been required to give out information on your income, place of employment, family, and answer a number of questions that verify your identity. For instance, I had to verify a recent car loan. And while you are not required to give out your social security number, you are repeatedly pressured to do so.

You are also asked detailed questions about your family situation -- whether you are married and how many children you have. Just to get a quote, I also had to answer intrusive questions about my wife, even though she is already insured and won't be buying insurance through ObamaCare.

Had I known that without my knowledge, I was giving away my right to privacy, there is no way on earth I would've given the ObamaCare site as much information as I did.

I just don't see the big deal. We are in a digital age and private sector firms are collecting this kind of information all the time. Nobody even cares about social security numbers anymore. And seriously? People are worried about giving up info on their income and place of work?

There are lots of problems. It is hypocritical for any private sector advocates to complain that Obamacare is collecting too much info.

Just to get yourself an insurance quote on the ObamaCare site, you have been required to give out information on your income, place of employment, family, and answer a number of questions that verify your identity. For instance, I had to verify a recent car loan. And while you are not required to give out your social security number, you are repeatedly pressured to do so.

You are also asked detailed questions about your family situation -- whether you are married and how many children you have. Just to get a quote, I also had to answer intrusive questions about my wife, even though she is already insured and won't be buying insurance through ObamaCare.

Had I known that without my knowledge, I was giving away my right to privacy, there is no way on earth I would've given the ObamaCare site as much information as I did.

Your income and employment is govt info anyway, unless you don't file a tax return. Your marital status and how many kids you have is hardly private information.

yes and that info is protected. it is private. Hipaa is a function of security & privacy. I'm surprised you choose to ignore it. maybe you are fed.

I have built websites, I'm quite familiar. if it talks like a duck & walks like a duck -- it's a duck.

And another thing.... just what entity do you think provides both the protection and privacy of that info? Who regulates HIPAA numbnuts? Yeah... hopefully they don't share it with the government.......

the nutjobs who believe in black helicopters probably don't give that information to the government unless it's under duress...

You have never seen a helicopter that was black? It doesn't require much belief if it's hovering off in the distance all black and everything.

pffft..obviously photoshopped.

__________________
"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father ... And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

"If the people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." - Thomas Jefferson